US Supreme Court upholds WA’s “top two” primary

Yup… you read the headline. And all I can say at the moment is that I’m both surprised and disappointed.

“Wow!” Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed said when told of the decision. “That’s terrific! It means the people of the state of Washington are going to be able to control who gets elected through this process.”

Reed said the top-two system will take effect with the August primary election.

“This is a victory for the state of Washington,” he said in an interview.

Reed said the ruling sets a precedent that will allow other states to break political party control on primary elections.

Yeah, well, be careful what you wish for Sam. Now that the parties have lost all control over the nominating process, their only influence can come from raising and spending huge gobs of cash on their favored candidates. That means rather than being hands off a primary battle, the party bigwigs will be forced to pick a candidate early, and the role of money (and the wealthy people who have it) only becomes more pronounced.

In fact, primary elections in Washington state have just become a big, fat waste of time and money. The whole purpose of a primary election is to enable the parties to choose their candidates through more democratic means, rather than via smoke filled rooms. Now that you’ve done away with that, and entirely removed the parties from the nominating process, we might as well skip the primary and go straight to a general election… that way the ultimate winner can be chosen on a ballot that folks actually turnout for.

Dumb fucking Washingtonians and our pathological need to be different. And dumb fucking party leadership for challenging the old blanket primary, which may have sucked, but was a helluva lot better than what we’re stuck with now.

Share:

Related

Comments

Well, here’s the end of Third parties in Washington state. With the “top two” spots essentially reserved for the two major parties, third parties are forever frozen out of our political system.

And remember all those one-party legislative districts that the Redistricting Commission divies up between the Democrats and Republicans? Look for those to have two D’s or two R’s in the November run-off, further diminishing the choices voters have.

Yeah, how dare the voters who pay for elections with their tax dollars think they should get to write the rules for them? Face it, elections are for parties to select their preferred candidate, not for voters to do that.

What irredeemable bullshit.

Simply put, if political parties want a process that is entirely under their control, THEY can pay for it (see: Washington’s presidential preference caucuses), as opposed to taxpayers (a number of whom in Washington don’t particularly like the idea of political parties). I don’t particularly buy the idea that the rights of political parties trump those of voters in a democracy to organize that democracy in a way they choose to. If the people of Washington want top two, by God, they should have it.

Well, here’s the end of Third parties in Washington state. With the “top two” spots essentially reserved for the two major parties, third parties are forever frozen out of our political system.

There’s almost no examples of a third party candidate who’s finished in first or second in a primary election in the last 20 years in this state- even the ones that do exist (Swazja as a Green in the 7th CD) don’t really sustain themselves. The Libertarians, for instance, have never broken 5-10% in this state, or been remotely close to electing someone to the State Legislature.

Third parties are irrelevant because the populace finds them irrelevant, they generally operate in an irrelevant manner (the US Greens are a bad joke compared to their European counterparts, and the Libertarians are just a joke, period), and there are other issues with elections (first past the post as opposed to proportional representation, no IRV, and so on), not because of primary winnowing.

This is the best thing to happen for voters in years! It means votes, not party affiliation, are the key to getting on the general election ballot. And it INCREASES real choice!

The primary election is no longer a party nominating election, true. Instead, it is narrowing-down to the two candidates who best represent the district. Then those two battle to see which ONE of them best represents the district.

The “top two” spots are NOT reserved for the two major parties. That’s the whole point. They are reserved for whichever two candidates win the most votes, be they from the two major parties, one of the major parties, a third party, or independent.

In one-party legislative districts, there will now be real competition for incumbents. For example, in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, the general election is always between the Democratic incumbent (or a newly minted Democratic primary victor) and a sacrificial Republican. (And vice versa for Republican districts.) There is no real competition, no substantive choice. Having two Democrats on the ballot, who represent different viewpoints within the Democratic Party, is actually more choice, because it is a legitimate choice. And it is more representative of the mainstream views within that district.

Imagine Ed Murray versus Pat Thibaudeau in the general election in the 43rd District, rather than either one of them versus some Republican you’ve never heard of. Which contest better expressing the competing viewpoints within that district?

Goldy, imagine the opportunity to go after a Democratic incumbent who has lost touch with their voters!

As for third parties: under the current system, the third party candidate goes to the general election, wins single-digits percentages, and — at best — skews the outcome away from the major party most similar to them. How pointless. Now, there will be one simple imperative: win enough votes to come in at least second in the primary election. It means the third parties need to reach out to the larger mass of voters, rather than indulge in congratulatory masturbation for getting four percent.

But my quick read has SCOTUS rejecting the notion that the Washington scheme was unconstitutional on its face only. If it gets applied in an unconstitutional manner, that’s another thing entirely. But the opinion essentially walks anyone with half a brain through how to apply a top-two system in a constitional manner.

Certainly, I find the dissent more persuasive. But the concurring opinion of CJ Roberts offers hope since it endorses much of the reasoning of J. Scalia’s dissent but insists on some real-world experience first.

Still, Goldy…to willy-nilly call Washington voters “dumb” isn’t going to get you any converts nor will it aid any candidates you endorse (think The Darcy). How will it look if candidates with whom you are close have to drop you like a hot rock because of your Pastor Wright-lite scorched breath rhetoric? Political Certs anyone?

What SCOTUS’ decision will do is make it hard for the Washington State Democrats to disavow Richard Pope when next he runs for office. The majority opinion discusses the problem both major parties have with unwanted hangers-on (Democrats and Lyndon LaRouche, Republicans and David Duke) yet rejects the assertion of the parties that they don’t want to be tarred with the brush of flake candidates. What parties can do, per the opinion, is disavow publicly any association with those candidates who resemble three-day-old fish, which is what the Dems tried to do with Pope in the last election with limited success.

Bad Democrat that you are, Goldy, you broke from the party’s effort but, perhaps, validated the premise that what the SCOTUS opinion suggests is easier said than done.

I’ll bet both Dwight Pelz and Luke Esser are commiserating with each other trying to figure out how to deal with this mess.

There’s almost no examples of a third party candidate who’s finished in first or second in a primary election in the last 20 years in this state-

Exactly my point. But in the current partisan system, Third party candidates can and do appear on general election ballots, thereby giving choices to voters, but in “top two” they can’t and won’t (except perhaps in the unusual circumstance where only one major party candidate files for the office). Now we have the US Supreme Court saying it’s OK to keep Third Parties off of the General Election ballot. About what we could expect from the Bush court; sad to say.

Goldy, I don’t think the world is coming to an end. I’ve not been real happy with the marriage between the political parties and the state ballot process, any more than I’ve been happy with churches being involved in politics (regardless of which way they lean). The decision on who gets on the ballot in the general election should be as neutral a process as possible, without regard to party affiliation.

If you want to see an example of the problems party control over elections causes, take a look at Florida. The Republican governor and legislature pushed up the primary to a date which they knew in advance would result in a violation of the schedule & rules set forth by the Democratic Party. Now the Florida Republicans are trying to use this to their political advantage, by rather disengeniously blaming the Democrats for the problem, and yet barring any re-vote (no public money or facilities can be used, no voter signature cards made available to confirm mail-in ballots).

Anyway, think about it for a minute – if we had a national top-two system, there’s a pretty good chance that in quite a few states you would only have Hillary and Obama on the ticket for the general election! I think the only place where Republicans might shut out any Democrat on the ballot would be in Utah!

The parties are people too. In fact, last time I checked, every active member of the Republican and Democratic parties where people. (Well… I can’t actually vouch for the Republicans.)

Matthew @4,

No, it decreases choice, because most people don’t vote in the primary. That means most people will never see a Libertarian or Green or other such third party on the ballot. In fact, in many districts, they’ll only see one party on the ballot in November. How hard is that for folks to understand?

Piper @5,

What is it with you trolls’ obsession with me? I’m not a politician; I’m just some dumb blogger. If I ever run for office, then I’ll have to start worrying about hurting voters’ feelers. But I’ve always operated under the assumption that most people are grownups with an innate ability to read me in context.

Why do you presume that keeping Third Parties would be expected from “the Bush court?” A lot of the parties are Far Left kooks like the Socialist Workers, etc. Taking them off the General ballot would only HELP the Dems.

Hey cmklich: Maybe you should go back to the hole you crawled out of. Wimpy republicans don’t belong in MY state – or do we have to kick you out on your fat butts?

I guess we will wait until November and you can get your usual wuppin at the ballot box – will there be any republicans left in the House from Washington? Reichert is a goner. Even Hastings is being challenged (and not just ethically challenged as usual). Republicans shoudl be given endangered species status or housed with the mentally incompetent – where they belong.

Hey McCain thinks al qaeda comes from Iran – the idiot. Just what we need – four more years of ignorance. Here is the link – McCain doesn’t even know what al qaeda is or the difference between a sunni and a shia: Guess that passes the CIC test (haha)!!

When you have one party districts, which Washington State has in spades, the election gets decided in the primary where most people vote. Now they have to decide it in the general. I think that’s an improvement.

The parties are people too. In fact, last time I checked, every active member of the Republican and Democratic parties where people. (Well… I can’t actually vouch for the Republicans.)

Of course they are. And so are independent voters who do not wish to be Democrats or Republicans, but wish to be able to pick and choose who to vote for in primary elections rather than be restricted to one ballot and one set of choices (and a number of Rs and Ds meet this description as well). So why should primaries be set up to favor the right of political party members to chose their representatives, over the right of independents or others who agree with the idea of an open ballot to simply reduce ballot choices from “everyone who filed” to “top two finishers”, as a way to be able to pick between both Republicans AND Democrats (or, alternatively, 3rd parties) in a primary?

Last I checked, the people of the state of Washington, the inherent source of all political power under the constitution, enacted I-872. They also are the ones writing the checks for the primary. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for political parties to be subordinate to the will of the voters as expressed through a duly passed initiative.

Political parties are, pretty much, free to select their candidates how they want. The Primary, however, is run by and paid for by the state of Washington. If the parties want to to participate in our primary they should follow our rules.

@9 “in many districts, they’ll only see one party on the ballot in November.”

Hell, in the north end of Tacoma they tend not to see anyone at all in November. Everyone runs as a Democrat, so the election is decided in the primary. Sometimes the winning state Rep. gets a whopping 300 votes!

@16: Sorry – independents don’t have a party and therefore shouldn’t be selecting the candidates in MY party. If they want a say in what MY party nominates – then they have to join the party and vote. Otherwise – vote for their own independent candidate if they make it to the general election – or join a party if they want to influence the eventual nominee.

This is a fantastic decision and fantastic for the citizens of Washington. If the political parties are unhappy about it, too fucking bad. They brought it upon themselves by challenging the open primary.

Hey guess, what, asshole? I’m from Philadelphia, too, even though I have lived in King County for 41 years.

I have news for you. Philadelphia’s public transit system is WAY better than Seattle’s. It isn’t even close. You can get around the city, which has way more area than Seattle does, very easily by bus or subway or elevated train. Seattle doesn’t even *have* an El or a subway, and it has far fewer buses.

What I said in the original comment in this thread has less to do with your popularity and viability than with that of those you support.

BHO is having a conniption fit right now getting tarred with the brush of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and well he should; you’re judged by the company you keep. If BHO is going to hang with a guy who says stuff like Wright said, then Wright’s words will get imputed to him, which is what’s happening now.

The Darcy, et al, will have to explain to voters someday…you. The stuff you say and the way you say it isn’t even close to centrist 8th CD-friendly. You need to ask yourself if but what you’re damaging your “friends” by your style. Wouldn’t it suck big time if you and yours became campaign issues? If somehow a clever campaign consultant wedded you to The Darcy such that a vote for her is seen as a vote for you?

In Bellevue, Medina, Redmond, Issaquah, Sammamish, North Bend, Auburn, etc., would that be seen as a net plus or a net minus?

Most of the Democrats getting elected on the Eastside, Southeast King County, and Northeast Pierce County are more like the ones you rail against and castigate such that your support for someone over here may be akin to the support a stinky pile of doggy mess gives to the bottom of a shoe.

When all the kids attend charter schools rather than WEA indoctrination camps? When all the gas & road taxes we pay actually get used for… roads? When the folks who choose to live on Vashon or Bainbridge pay 100% of their commuting costs?

Won’t it be awesome when there is actual accountability in State Gov’t (like we have voted for NUMEROUS times!?!

Good to see we’re on the same page. I like progress, too.

BTW, me and mine built this area. For FIVE generations! It WAS great ’til all the goddamn foreigners from wherever (Philly?) tried to force their illiterate liberalism on us good, decent, real Americans.

25: “Won’t it be a great day: When the folks who choose to live on Vashon or Bainbridge pay 100% of their commuting costs?”

Pursuant to the Washington Constitution, the ferry system is included in the state highway system. Can you tell me why state highway taxes should not be used to support the ferry system when they are used to build, maintain, and repair every other part of the highway system? If you had a job to commute to, I would be highly doubtful whether you paid your fair share of the cost of maintaining whatever roads you would use for your commute. And, lastly, the Bainbridge run pays for itself. Your immunity to facts is quite impressive. You should aspire to a GOP leadership position.

Goldy @9: “No, it decreases choice, because most people don’t vote in the primary. That means most people will never see a Libertarian or Green or other such third party on the ballot. In fact, in many districts, they’ll only see one party on the ballot in November. How hard is that for folks to understand?”

If people want to get their Libertarian or Green candidate onto the general election ballot, they should get off their butts and vote in the primary. The fact that these candidates always do poorly is not because the system is rigged against them — it’s because the (large majority of) voters don’t like them!

To say that “one party on the ballot” provides no choice assumes that all candidates affiliated with a given party are precisely in lockstep with all other candidates with that party. We know that’s not true (heck, read every third or fourth post on HA).

Again, use the 43rd district as an example. In 2006, which matchup would have really provided a better choice — a substantive choice, a choice that truly reflects the major competing currents of political thought in that district — in the general election (when, as you say, more people vote): Jamie Pedersen versus Jim Street (who took second in the Democratic primary) or Jamie Pedersen versus Hugh Foskett (who?).

“In the top-two primary, candidates can designate their party preference even if they aren’t that party’s nominee.”

— From the fishwrapper article Goldy linked to

This means we’re going to see a lot more Republicans calling themselves “Democrats.” And did anyone notice that Washington State Grange, sponsor of the top-two initiative, was represented before SCOTUS by Thomas Ahearn? He’s the GOP operative behind the defunct American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR), a phony GOP front group whose mission was to pretend Democrats commit vote fraud and Republicans don’t.

I think the main effect of “top two” will be that Democrats not only won’t win in eastern Washington, they won’t even get on the ballot there. Eastern Washington will become a one-party third world country like Mexico or North Korea.

Roger @ 29 I would not call Tom Ahearn a GOP operative. He represented the State Auditor’s office in the Rossi v. Gregoire matter, taking a position contrary to that of Dino and causing Sam Reed to get pissed on from the right. Moreover, he has been lead counsel on a number of occasions in actions aimed at overturning Tim Eyman’s various initiatives.

GEE LOOK AT THE NEW GOV OF NEW YORK WHO ADMITTED HE CHEATED ON HIS WIFE.OH WELL HE DID NOT HAVE TO PAY 5K FOR A HOOKER.THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE FAMILY.GEE THE LEFT IS PRETTY QUIET ON THE SUBJECT.HELL IF WERE A REPUP GOLDY WOULD OF CREAMED HIS PANTS TO BLOG IT.

Sorry Goldy but where I come from we call this DEMOCRACY!!!! Victory to the people.

Your are wrong that the parties will now just raise more money and your own activities prove this! This is a real opening for new structures .. like the blogosphere ..to arise and replace the decrepit partisan system we now have.

Just as Darcy is running as a Blogocrat, I hope we will see much nmore of that in the future.

Roger, are you sure you’re right about Tom Ahearne – the attorney representing the Attorney General in the case concerning the last governor’s election – and Mark “Thor” Hearne – the founder of the American Center for Voting Rights?

Just asking if you’re accusation that these two folks are one in the same might be false…

Louisiana, the only other state with a “top two,” has this year restored party primaries in its congressional elections. The only other state with a “top two” movement is Oregon; it’ll be tougher to get approved there, since (1) Oregon’s parties are stronger than Washington’s, and (2) Oregon voters don’t have the long history that Washington voters have of being able to cross party lines in the first round of voting.

Washington’s “top two” is clearly unconstitutional for congressional elections. The US Supreme Court has said that the November ballot cannot be limited to two candidates in congressional races. This portends yet another lawsuit.

The “top two” is certainly not a new idea. California voters had the good sense to reject it in 1915 and again in 2004. North Dakota voters defeated “top two” in 1925. In my state of Mississippi, the legislature passed “top two” five different times, 1966-1979. Thank God it has never been implemented here!!

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.